Use este identificador para citar ou linkar para este item: http://repositorio.ufla.br/jspui/handle/1/42444
Registro completo de metadados
Campo DCValorIdioma
dc.creatorMontesinos, Isabel-
dc.creatorGruson, Damien-
dc.creatorKabamba, Benoit-
dc.creatorDahma, Hafid-
dc.creatorVan den Wijngaert, Sigi-
dc.creatorReza, Soleimani-
dc.creatorCarbone, Vincenzo-
dc.creatorVandenberg, Olivier-
dc.creatorGulbis, Beatrice-
dc.creatorWolff, Fleur-
dc.creatorRodriguez-Villalobos, Hector-
dc.date.accessioned2020-08-17T18:17:10Z-
dc.date.available2020-08-17T18:17:10Z-
dc.date.issued2020-07-
dc.identifier.citationMONTESINOS, I. et al. Evaluation of two automated and three rapid lateral flow immunoassays for the detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Journal of Clinical Virology, [S.l.], v. 128, July 2020.pt_BR
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1386653220301554pt_BR
dc.identifier.urihttp://repositorio.ufla.br/jspui/handle/1/42444-
dc.description.abstractIntroduction Several SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays have been developed recently. The purpose of this study was to assess the performance of five immunoassays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Methods Two quantitative automated immunoassays (Maglumi™2019-n-Cov IgG and IgM and Euroimmun Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgA assays) and three lateral flow rapid tests were performed. This retrospective study included 200 residual sera from patients and healthy volunteers. Case serum samples (n = 128) were obtained from COVID-19 patients confirmed by RT-qPCR and CT-scan. Days since onset of symptoms was collected from their medical records. Control non-SARS-CoV-2 samples (n = 72) were obtained from anonymous stored residual serum samples. Results Maglumi™ IgG/IgM tests showed overall less sensitivity than Euroimmun IgG/IgA test (84.4 % versus 64.3 %). Both tests showed similar specificities of IgG at 99 % and 100 %, respectively. The results from the lateral flow assays were easily interpretable with unambiguous coloured reading bands. The overall sensitivity of the three tests was similar (around 70 %) without any significant differences. The sensitivity of the three lateral flow assays and also of the serological quantitative assays increased during the second week after symptom onset and all reached similar values (91 %–94 %) after 14 days. Conclusion This study shows accurate and equivalent performance of the five serological antibody assays (ELISA, CLIA and three lateral flow tests) in detecting SARS-CoV-2 antibodies 14 days after the onset of COVID-19 symptoms. This is compatible with their application in specific clinical contexts and in determining epidemiological strategies for the COVID-19 pandemic.pt_BR
dc.languageen_USpt_BR
dc.publisherElsevierpt_BR
dc.rightsrestrictAccesspt_BR
dc.sourceJournal of Clinical Virologypt_BR
dc.subjectSevere Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)pt_BR
dc.subjectLateral flow assayspt_BR
dc.subjectImmunoassayspt_BR
dc.subjectEnzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA)pt_BR
dc.subjectChemiluminescence Immunoassay (CLIA)pt_BR
dc.subjectCOVID-19pt_BR
dc.titleEvaluation of two automated and three rapid lateral flow immunoassays for the detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodiespt_BR
dc.typeArtigopt_BR
Aparece nas coleções:FCS - Artigos sobre Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Arquivos associados a este item:
Não existem arquivos associados a este item.


Os itens no repositório estão protegidos por copyright, com todos os direitos reservados, salvo quando é indicado o contrário.